I'm looking for an optic for 0-100 yards for close quarter use. I already have a T31 RCO 4x32 for my flat top M4 for long range use and love it. I'm looking closely at the compact ACOG 2x20 vs. an Aimpoint ML3. Any reports, concerns, advice, or alternatives. Thanks in advance.

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:Use the ACOG on a carry handle, the Aimpoint on a flat top.

Please expound your wisdom on us, I've been wondering the same thing he is and I'm wondering why you say that. My eyes aren't what they used to be and it would seem to me a little magnification would be a good thing. So why do you say that, if you don't mind me askin.

Well, while the standard compact ACOG was designed to be mounted on a carry handle, there is no reason but the default base to mount it on a carry handle because none of the compact ACOGs have BDC ladders.

With that being said, since you already have a TA31, getting another ACOG, albeit a compact one, will allow you to train with the BAC on both rifles or train twice as much if both optics are going on the same rifle.

However some people are never as fast with a BAC-equipped ACOG as they are with a red dot at close range (50 yds or less). It should also be noted that some people are highly effective within 100 yds with a TA-31 though most feel that the chevron reticule is not quite as fast within 100 yds as the donut reticule. The lower magnification of the 2X model may make using BAC at close ranges easier for you.

As far as the ML3 goes, it's a great optic for the ranges you're looking to use it within and beyond. The only thing you really lose is good target identification at longer ranges. Then again, I don't know if that matters to you or not.

So in the end, based upon what you have and what you're considering purchasing, any of the optics you mentioned may work for you. It all depends on you really.

A firearm is a tool and its appearance has no bearing on how it performs. Function should always take priority over form. To think otherwise is foolhardy.

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:What I mean is that the Compact ACOG is a natural choice for direct mounting to a carry handle, but the Aimpoint mounts to a flat top better.

While it's a fact that the compact ACOG was designed to be mounted on a carry handle, the only thing about those optics that makes them a "natural choice" for mounting on the carry handle is their base. As I stated in my previous post, there is nothing else about that series optics that makes them perform better or worse when mounted on a carry handle (no BDC).

As far as the Aimpoint goes, flat top ARs didn't even exist when the Aimpoint was designed. Mounts are available for it to attach it to either the carry handle or the flat top. So while the flat top mount may be more common today, that has not always been the case.

In conclusion, either optic will perform fine when mounted to either a carry handle or flat top so the platform on which either optic is mounted neither degrades or enhances the optic's performance. It's a non-issue unless you want to save money by not buying a mount. An Aimpoint with a carry handle mount will typically cost less than a compact ACOG without a mount.

A firearm is a tool and its appearance has no bearing on how it performs. Function should always take priority over form. To think otherwise is foolhardy.

Originally Posted By Matt_B:As far as the Aimpoint goes, flat top ARs didn't even exist when the Aimpoint was designed. Mounts are available for it to attach it to either the carry handle or the flat top. So while the flat top mount may be more common today, that has not always been the case.

I’m doing my part to rekindle the carry handle mounted Aimpoint. I was reluctant to go this route based off what I heard here. But after mounting an Aimpoint clone to the handle of my sons .22 AR I decided to mount an ML2 to my CAR’s carry handle. The cheek weld is not as bad as others make it out to be and I really like it.

Originally Posted By QUIB:I’m doing my part to rekindle the carry handle mounted Aimpoint. I was reluctant to go this route based off what I heard here. But after mounting an Aimpoint clone to the handle of my sons .22 AR I decided to mount an ML2 to my CAR’s carry handle. The cheek weld is not as bad as others make it out to be and I really like it.

I'd also think that since the Aimpoint is a red dot and cheek weld isn't really an issue when using it (unlike a traditional optic), having it mounted up higher would improve the shooter's FOV. This set up of course is better for short range use due to the optic's extended height above the bore.

A firearm is a tool and its appearance has no bearing on how it performs. Function should always take priority over form. To think otherwise is foolhardy.

Originally Posted By QUIB:I’m doing my part to rekindle the carry handle mounted Aimpoint. I was reluctant to go this route based off what I heard here. But after mounting an Aimpoint clone to the handle of my sons .22 AR I decided to mount an ML2 to my CAR’s carry handle. The cheek weld is not as bad as others make it out to be and I really like it.

I'd also think that since the Aimpoint is a red dot and cheek weld isn't really an issue when issuing it (unlike a traditional optic), having it mounted up higher would improve the shooter's FOV. This set up of course is better for short range use due to the optic's extended height above the bore.

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:The magnification offered by the ACOG is in most cases negligible.

Whether or not the magnification (in this case 2X) is neglible is subjective. A more objective way of considering the magnification is that objects viewed through the optic will appear 2 times as close. In other words, objects are 100 yds. will appear as if they were at 50 yds.

They are pretty good kit, but they cost more than an M68 with a mount.

Agreed. Comparing a compact ACOG to an Aimpoint is akin to comparing apples to oranges. It's up to the individual to determine their needs so they can select that piece of gear that will fulfill those needs.

A firearm is a tool and its appearance has no bearing on how it performs. Function should always take priority over form. To think otherwise is foolhardy.

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:The magnification offered by the ACOG is in most cases negligible.

Whether or not the magnification (in this case 2X) is neglible is subjective. A more objective way of considering the magnification is that objects viewed through the optic will appear 2 times as close. In other words, objects are 100 yds. will appear as if they were at 50 yds.

They are pretty good kit, but they cost more than an M68 with a mount.

Agreed. Comparing a compact ACOG to an Aimpoint is akin to comparing apples to oranges. It's up to the individual to determine their needs so they can select that piece of gear that will fulfill those needs.

I don't know, I keep hearing this talk about compact acog's being worthless. Someone posted that it would actually be harder to see with both eyes open with less magnification than one of the 4x acogs. How that's true is beyond me. I wish I knew someone to try them out. Of course I can't really afford one right now but at least I'd know if I want to save for it. I have a 2 x 7 leupy and I can definitely see the target better at 100 yards then my bare eyeballs and it's a heck of a lot better than the irons because you're looking at 1 plane, not 3. Same with the acog. And 2x is pretty fast at 25 yards or so, and even closer. Maybe not AS fast as a red dot but still pretty fast.

I don't know, I keep hearing this talk about compact acog's being worthless. Someone posted that it would actually be harder to see with both eyes open with less magnification than one of the 4x acogs. How that's true is beyond me. I wish I knew someone to try them out. Of course I can't really afford one right now but at least I'd know if I want to save for it. I have a 2 x 7 leupy and I can definitely see the target better at 100 yards then my bare eyeballs and it's a heck of a lot better than the irons because you're looking at 1 plane, not 3. Same with the acog. And 2x is pretty fast at 25 yards or so, and even closer. Maybe not AS fast as a red dot but still pretty fast.

Who here has a compact and do you like them is the question??????

I do. I have a Bushy M4A2 clone and use a TA 47-2 2x20 (amber triangle) mounted in the CH. I love the setup and it works well for me out to 460 yards (the farthest gong at my local range). I find the 2x magnification to be helpful, but very easily managed at even the closest distances. I have never felt my time suffered much worse than someone with a red dot. Some people flat cannot make the BAC work for them, but I am not one. Best thing to do is link up with someone who has one and shoot it to see if it works for you.

All that being said, my next project is to mount a TR 21 (1.25-4x) Accupoint on a flattop Recce build I am working on. The notion of variable power for different situations appeals greatly to me.

Originally Posted By in_burrito:There is another reason to consider the ACOG over the Aimpoint; astigmatism.

I have an astigmatism, and have no problems with my Aimpoint. I'm sure there are varing degrees of it, but in my case with corrective lenses, I have no problems.

Depends on the corrective lenses. My astigmatism isn't bad enough to need to correct it on a daily basis in my contacts but it affects the way I see the Aimpoint dot. With my glasses, that are corrected for the astigmatism, the starburst effect is much less but still present.

I can still use the Aimpoint or Eotech, but the ACOG doesn't have the problem.

Originally Posted By in_burrito:There is another reason to consider the ACOG over the Aimpoint; astigmatism.

I have an astigmatism, and have no problems with my Aimpoint. I'm sure there are varing degrees of it, but in my case with corrective lenses, I have no problems.

Depends on the corrective lenses. My astigmatism isn't bad enough to need to correct it on a daily basis in my contacts but it affects the way I see the Aimpoint dot. With my glasses, that are corrected for the astigmatism, the starburst effect is much less but still present.

I can still use the Aimpoint or Eotech, but the ACOG doesn't have the problem.

Thats good to know since I definately want to buy an ACOG at some point. I've looked at some at the gun shows, and I didnt notice any problems.

Originally Posted By Hokie:for 0-100 yards, I wouldn't consider anything over 1X magnification.

1.25X (e.g. the Accupoint) ain't so bad.

I'd give that choice a big +1!!!

As I've been familiarizing myself with the Accupoint around the house, I've noticed that using the optic at 1.25X mag makes near objects (15 feet or less) appear slightly blurry. This is of course looking through the optic with both eyes open and not really trying to focus on the magnified image (using the BAC - Binden Aiming Concept). This makes target acquisition very fast but I have yet to see how accurate it is. That being said, at the distances I would use this power of magnification at, I don't think accuracy would be an issue.

When I start working with 2X magnification, BAC becomes much easier to use and the "bluriness" associated with 1.25X mag goes away.

I could totally see using a 2X ACOG. Being able to easily identify the target is always a good thing.

A firearm is a tool and its appearance has no bearing on how it performs. Function should always take priority over form. To think otherwise is foolhardy.

Originally Posted By Hokie:for 0-100 yards, I wouldn't consider anything over 1X magnification.

1.25X (e.g. the Accupoint) ain't so bad.

I'd give that choice a big +1!!!

As I've been familiarizing myself with the Accupoint around the house, I've noticed that using the optic at 1.25X mag makes near objects (15 feet or less) appear slightly blurry. This is of course looking through the optic with both eyes open and not really trying to focus on the magnified image (using the BAC - Binden Aiming Concept). This makes target acquisition very fast but I have yet to see how accurate it is. That being said, at the distances I would use this power of magnification at, I don't think accuracy would be an issue.

When I start working with 2X magnification, BAC becomes much easier to use and the "bluriness" associated with 1.25X mag goes away.

I could totally see using a 2X ACOG. Being able to easily identify the target is always a good thing.

I have read and practiced the same thing with a 2X ACOG once, I agree. Don't know the physics behind it but the 2X ACOG's do seem easier on the eyes than the 1.25X. I can't wait for a flip up front cover for my TA31. I think for <15 or less an occluded sight is the way to go. As always, YMMV.

If I had no trouble seeing the target and ID'ing it to the extent I needed at the range you are considering, I would go with the Aimpoint. It doesn't require a consistent cheek weld and is faster for most people.

If I was having trouble making that ID or seeing at that distance, then any type of ACOG starts to look more attractive.

Originally Posted By Hokie:I have read and practiced the same thing with a 2X ACOG once, I agree. Don't know the physics behind it but the 2X ACOG's do seem easier on the eyes than the 1.25X. I can't wait for a flip up front cover for my TA31. I think for <15 or less an occluded sight is the way to go. As always, YMMV.